Brigitte’s Rocket Flail 3D Printed Prop #3DPrinting #3DThursday

C2e5e22ebf2aafb541afc24d8f8fa3cd preview featured

MrVolt shared this project on Thingiverse!

Alla til mig!

Here’s my take on Brigitte’s rocket flail from Overwatch. You can see it in action here:
https://youtu.be/YWPtaoatmFM

In addition to the parts printed above, you also need

1.25″ OD x 20.25″ tube for the handle

8x 1.75″ 1/4-20 hex head bolts + nuts

The electronic part of the mechanism still needs some work, so I’m holding off on sharing that until it makes sense, but I’m moving on to other projects for now.

Shoot me a message if you have any questions.

See more!


649-1
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

Flippy the “Robot” #3DThursday #3DPrinting

6f4da3e9eaa2b7665a33f3f33f5e87dc preview featured

Shared by make-a-roni on Thingiverse:

This is a walking “robot” based on a fantastic design that I believe should be credited to Saurav Chakraborty. Search for “Brainergiser” in YouTube to see his other amazing creations!

My version works on the sample principle. I love how this toy moves … it’s a seemingly unstoppable machine. I asked some elementary students what it should be called and one little girl suggested “Flippy” because it will flip upside-down sometimes when trying to walk over uneven surfaces. What’s great is that it just keeps on going upside-down, and will sometimes right itself after encountering another object in its way.

Download the files and learn more


649-1
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

The Adafruit Learning System has dozens of great tools to get you well on your way to creating incredible works of engineering, interactive art, and design with your 3D printer! If you’ve made a cool project that combines 3D printing and electronics, be sure to let us know, and we’ll feature it here!

Live Demonstration of ACES Concrete 3D Printing Technology at CERL to 3D Print Barracks: Part 2

One half of the 3D Printed Strcture.

I was recently invited to the US Army’s Engineer Research and Development Center’s (ERDC) Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) in Illinois to see a live demonstration of its Automated Construction of Expeditionary Structures (ACES) technology. Last year, the US Army used ACES to 3D print a complete barracks, or B-Hut, in 21.5 hours with the Army’s patented concrete mixture.

Having only seen still images and video of this unique technology, I knew I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to see a 512 square foot barracks 3D printed live in front of my very eyes within 24 hours. So yesterday afternoon, I hopped in my car for the roughly four-hour drive out west to Champaign.

A closer look at a completed section.

A closer look at a completed section.

The goal for this ACES demonstration is to successfully 3D print the exterior concrete walls of a 8 foot building in 24 hours. While the ACES team and its project partner, Chicago-based architectural and engineering firm Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), are both onsite, Marines from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are running the equipment; obviously, if the project is successful and this technology is able to be deployed overseas to our troops in the future, they will be the ones actually 3D printing the structures.

Benton Johnson, PE, SE, the Associate Director at SOM, told me yesterday that the Marines were briefed on the ACES technology and equipment via conference call and email. From the looks of things, they seemed to have gotten the hang of everything – preparing and mixing the materials, running the computer, cleaning up the printed layers by hand and clearing away material from the bolts, etc. Johnson pointed out that the main coder of the project was onsite, but only to offer assistance if needed.

A close up of the nozzle 3D printing the barracks. Image Sarah Saunders.

“I think part of this is a learning curve, because all the Marines that were out there operating the machinery had never seen this or touched it before,” Captain Matt Friedell told me.

“But they took to it, and once they learned it, they started to get in their groove and really pick up the pace. And we knew when we were going to attempt this that it was going to be a challenge.”

Obviously, there were a few glitches, as people rarely get the hang of new technology perfectly the first time out. The barracks is being 3D printed in two halves, and at one point the Marine running the computer accidentally sent the nozzle over to the side that wasn’t being worked on yet; later, when steel dowels were being added for initial reinforcement to the first 18″ or so of 3D printed concrete, work began on the wrong side. But none of this seemed to slow the process down.

However, as I mentioned yesterday, things did not start off swimmingly. Program manager Michael Case, PhD, told me that one of the issues with concrete is evaporation drying. So when the forecast showed rain today, the start time of the demonstration was moved up a few hours, only to halt again pretty quickly. Dr. Case explained that the material used at the Fort Leonard Wood demonstration a few months ago was sharper and more angular than it is here at CERL, and tore up the inside of the pump.

By the time the team finished replacing the pump and working the kinks out of the hose, it was almost the original start time of 5 pm. it looked like things were going to start moving, until the material didn’t extrude properly and some team members removed the nozzle to find that a rock inside was jamming things up. When the concrete finally started to print, the material mixture had to be adjusted after the first layer because it was too sloppy. But once this was fixed, things really took off, and work continued through the night, with very few clogs.

Spoiler alert: when I arrived back at CERL this morning, I learned that the team would not be able to make its original deadline of 24 hours. Dr. Case explained that “a big part of this is to figure out how long you can continuously use the equipment.”

“So we learned a lot about things…If you operate this type of concrete printing equipment long enough, you have to stop and service some of the equipment.”

Dr. Case said that if you don’t clean out the equipment, you can get concrete curing inside of the pump, and that it will eventually shut down, which caused some delays overnight. So by about 9 am this morning, the team had nearly completed the first half of the structure, and was planning on taking a few hours of much-needed rest before starting in on the second half.

While the ACES team won’t make the original goal of a continuous 24 hour print, the work they’ve completed and will continue throughout the rest of the day, is extremely impressive. Capt. Friedell told me as I was leaving CERL that he was certain this project is the tallest continuous 3D print in the US.

Stay tuned to 3DPrint.com for a more in-depth look at my visit to CERL this week! So far it has been very exciting to be able to have unfettered access to the site and to have been given access to all of the people involved. Issues with extrusion, rain and the weather that this team had actually made me question more the validity of some “3D printing a house in a day” claims. What this team ancountered were real-life challenges brought on by equipment and the weather that slowed them down. I think that CERL’s effort, undertaken with a journalist present, was much more transparent, open and honest than the commercial house printing initiatives who somehow always tell us after the fact the great feats that they’ve accomplished. I can now really see the value that house 3D printing could have for the Marine Corps, Army and for civilian use. Most of all I’m grateful that I got an up close and personal look at what it actually takes to 3D print a structure.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below. 

[Images: Sarah Saunders for 3DPrint.com]

3D Hangouts – Episode #196 – Paddle Wheel Rover #3DThursday #3DPrinting

CRICKIT Powered Paddle Wheel Boat
https://learn.adafruit.com/crickit-boat/

Get CRICKIT from DigiKey
https://www.digikey.com/short/jrzr03

3xAA Battery Holder
https://www.adafruit.com/product/3842

2-pin Wire Joints
https://www.adafruit.com/product/3786

3xAA WaterProof Battery Holder
https://www.adafruit.com/product/771

Motion Control Screwdrive
https://www.adafruit.com/product/3856

3D CAD Models of Adafruit Boards and Components
https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_CAD_Parts

Saving out projects in Fusion 360 by Chris Young
http://tech.cyborg5.com/2018/07/28/workaround-for-saving-fusion-360-projects-with-linked-components/

Glitter Pink PLA from Proto Pasta
https://www.proto-pasta.com/products/cupids-crush-metallic-pink-htpla

Timelapse Tuesday – Flexy Stego Dual Extruded
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3029064

Community Makes
https://www.thingiverse.com/make:518794 facecase pi
https://www.thingiverse.com/make:518589 pi grrl 2
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3027514 pigrrl 2 remix
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3014112 tesla charger hanger remix
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3009560 pigrrl zero remix


649-1
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

The Adafruit Learning System has dozens of great tools to get you well on your way to creating incredible works of engineering, interactive art, and design with your 3D printer! If you’ve made a cool project that combines 3D printing and electronics, be sure to let us know, and we’ll feature it here!

‘3D Printer Host’ Monitors Your 3D-Prints with Alexa, Arduino, Pi, and OctoPrint | #thingspeak #3Dprinting #3DThursday

High school student and maker Miles Nash built this impressive ‘3D Printer Host‘ for checking in on the status of his 3D-prints with the aid of Alexa as well as a Feather HUZZAH with ESP8266 coupled with a LED ring for visual status indication; a Pi 3 Model B is running OctoPrint and provides the status updates of the printer host.

Check out the description below and the full project here on Hackster!

When I start a 3D print I don’t sit around waiting for it to finish so I can start another one, I get up and do something more productive. This though, can sometimes lead to problems like me forgetting whether or not my printer is currently printing or wondering how much time it will be until I can start another print. The desire to be able to remotely monitor my print led me to OctoPrint, a program which when loaded onto a raspberry pi and connected to a 3D printer lets the printer be controlled and monitored from a website. Though this helped, I wasn’t a fan of having to pull out my phone every time I was curious of my 3D printer’s state. So, I made it even easier for myself to check on my printer by creating what I call 3D Printer Host.

3D Printer Host is a do it yourself electronic device created with a wifi enabled Adafruit Feather, a Neopixel ring, and a 3D printed enclosure. The device connects to OctoPrint via its API and the wonderful OctoPrint API library for Arduino. It displays the print’s progress as well as state on the Neopixel ring. The 3D Printer Host also connects to Alexa via Thingspeak and a custom skill which allows a user to ask Alexa about many aspects of their printer and find details about any current print. Though the way in which this device functions may be confusing, it is all easily explained in the following diagram.

Read more here.

3D Printer Host is a do it yourself electronic device created with a wifi enabled Adafruit Feather, a Neopixel ring, and a 3D printed enclosure. The device connects to OctoPrint via its API and the wonderful OctoPrint API library for Arduino. It displays the prints progress as well as state on the Neopixel ring. The 3D Printer Host also connects to Alexa via Thingspeak and a custom skill which allows a user to ask Alexa about many aspects of their printer and find details about any current print.

Read more here.

BASF and Reebok to Release Additional 3D Printed Liquid Speed Shoes, More Projects in Development

Multiple major shoe manufacturing corporations have been turning to 3D printing over the last couple of years. While 3D printed shoes aren’t filling shoe stores just yet, companies are being attracted to the technology for its design potential and customization possibilities. Now we’re in the age of the small series of exclusive 3D printing shoe. Earlier this year, Nike introduced the first shoe with a 3D printed upper, while New Balance has led the way with the first partially 3D printed shoe to be made commercially available. And in 2016, Reebok introduced the Liquid Speed shoe, which uses liquid developed by BASF to draw a frame directly onto the shoe. This allows for a tighter fit, and it’s pretty cool-looking, too.

The technique also does away with the traditional mold-driven process, which is expensive and time-consuming, and allows for localized production. Currently, nearly all athletic footwear is made in Asian factories due to the labor-intensive nature of the mold process, but thanks to Reebok’s 3D printing technology, the Liquid Speed shoe can be made anywhere, including in the company’s Liquid Factory, which is located in Rhode Island.

“The point of automation is to shorten the production cost and enable that automation,” said Chau Nguyen, Market Segment Manager for Footwear, PM North America, BASF. “So instead of a person sitting there and putting a sole on, they were able to dispense it in 3D on the part itself— that saved a lot of time.”

Reebok approached BASF, which it had worked with before, about creating a polyurethane material that it could use to create a unique outsole. BASF formulated a urethane-based liquid that could be drawn on to create an outsole that melds with the lacing on the shoe.

“We provide the material to Reebok that has the required rheology and reactivity to produce a part with no molds,” said Nguyen. “Look at it as if drawing with ketchup. When you draw with this material, it’s already curing, it’s already started to solidify.”

Comfort is key in any shoe (except some formal wear), but especially running shoes, where performance depends largely on how comfortably the shoe fits. The design of the Liquid Speed shoe allows for an especially secure and comfortable fit, according to Nguyen.

“In this case the outsole has wings on it and it wraps around to the sides of the shoe. You have tension at the top of your foot, and usually all of the materials are combined together,” he explained. “Well, in this case you have material attached to the sides, the medial and the lateral parts of your foot, so you get a more custom fit.”

Nguyen also calls the shoe the first high-rebound outsole. Until now, most outsoles have been made from rubber, but the polyurethane allows for better rebound.

“When you’re running, a certain amount of energy is going to the ground,” he said. “So, when you hit the ground, in this case, it absorbs the energy and then it returns it, that’s why it’s called high rebound.”

When the Liquid Speed shoe was first released in November, only 300 pairs were made, and they sold out within hours for $189.50 each. The first batch was so limited because Reebok was borrowing lab time, but now that it has opened its own Liquid Factory, there will be more extensive releases in the future. Reebok is working on additional footwear products with help from BASF, as well.

“The various chemistries provided by BASF—we have separate chemistries for cushioning, durability and support— are central to these creations,” said Bill McInnis, Head of Future at Reebok.

So keep an eye out for Liquid Speed to reemerge on the market before long, as well as some new developments from Reebok. As 3D printed shoes become more easily and frequently made, costs will likely go down as well, making them more accessible – Liquid Speed shoes are already relatively inexpensive compared to some of the other 3D printed shoes that have been released. Many of these other shoes have been made specifically for professional athletes, but Reebok seems to have the average consumer in mind.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below. 

[Source: BASF/Images: Reebok]

 

How did Formlabs get to become a unicorn and what are the implications of this for our Industry?

Yesterday we learned that Formlabs obtained an additional $15 million in funding from New Enterprise Associates making it estimated to be worth a billion dollars. We told you about that story and the immediate implications here, and now we have some analysis. This gives it coveted unicorn status amongst startups since so few privately held start-up companies are worth over a billion dollars. At first blush this unicorn status is meaningless. If I sold you a one billionth share of my shoe for two bucks then my shoe would be a unicorn too. The valuation and the resulting unicorn status are decided and conveyed by the same people hoping to profit from selling the business for more later on. Please also note that the people doing this selling and telling are VCs, who make their money allocating risk but almost all live near earthquake fault lines. These people are in the manufacturing inevitability business. So the Tl;dr is, nothing. It is not important that some of the people who invested in Formlabs would now like us to believe it is now worth a billion dollars as opposed to $10. What is important, however?

What are the implications for our industry? 

$100 million is the new $3 million. VC’s are now willing to sink over a $100 million in a third 3D printing company after Desktop metal and Carbon. This tells us a number of things. VCs really do believe in 3D printing which is nice. It also tells us that VCs believe that there will be one or two winners in the Additive Manufacturing market. Meanwhile, we see a chaotic open-source FDM 3D printer ecosystem with over 500 entrants. This implies that investors are expecting a mass die-off there of companies. Everyone I speak to expects the great majority of 3D printer companies to die off soon. It’s a near universally held truth, and you know when predicting the future these are almost never correct. What if we see more granular approaches to market and more companies filling more niches? What if specialization and systems integration into custom manufacturing solutions provides an alternative?

Have’s and Have Nots. There are a few companies with oodles of cash, namely Carbon, Desktop metal and Formlabs. This once again illustrates the power the US has in capital allocation. Shapeways moved to the states and the other high funding companies all hail from there. In a globalized world, it is still a great advantage to be a US startup.  Other companies such as Ultimaker have tens of millions of funding and seem to be running a marathon rather than running for the exits. Does this mean we are about to see a bifurcation in our industry with the European companies opting to stay private and the Americans going public? EOS is a huge firm that has grown incredibly quickly and yet it all in the hands of its founder Dr. Langer. What are the implications of this?

Will we also see a war of attrition on the desktop? In metal 3D printing people at Formnext, last year seemed to be building dreams and wars of attrition, not parts. Huge investments in stands made us believe that this sky castle was a better long-term bet than the next. Will we seem similar wars of attrition on the desktop? Will the happy few simply outspend those others who took little or no investment?

Kickstarter went from being a universe on and of itself to a byword for optimism induced consumer fraud. Formlabs success is a huge validation of the Kickstarter model and Kickstarters ability to build actual businesses. Far from dream coolers or once omnipresent Pebble watches some smart kids built an amazing business out of a Kickstarter. Will this mean that Kickstarter will once again become a mechanism for funding businesses or will it be novelties?

Jeff Immelt is probably as connected as one could get in manufacturing. His Rolodex could get Formlabs a strategic seat at the table right at a time when the boards of polymer companies, industrial firms, and large car companies are considering making end-use parts with 3D printing. Whereas Formlabs did enter into production with dental, casting and other applications, Immelt armed with Formlabs new sintering system could open some very exciting doors for Formlabs at the precise moment that they need it.

he Formlabs Form Cell Automated manufacturing setup.

The Formlabs Form Cell Automated manufacturing setup.

Leaping into manufacturing. So far it seemed to me that industrial laser sintering fas in the driving seat in “protected things” such as regulated things and medical while FDM would naturally win in manufacturing because of the price and diversity in materials. A more shop floor focus by Formlabs could see the company lead into competition for the manufacturing crown and this would mean a real challenge for FDM and EOS. Meanwhile, it could also decide to continue to dominate a mid-level manufacturing no man’s land where it would be the system in the room at the lab or at the design department. I think that the latter would be a much better bet in growth and margins long term. The wrong choice here could sink them.

Innovator’s Dilemma. If they go the manufacturing route it would mean a big challenge for EOS in the long run as well as a continued challenge for 3D Systems. How will they respond with pressure from below? The latter firm made a patent litigation settlement with Formlabs in 2014 which meant that Formlabs pays them 8% of sales in order to be able to use SLA. This was a win for 3D at the time but I think that the stability and lack of worry it brought the company meanwhile was important. Also, it must have terrified the 3D systems guys each installment to learn what they were getting paid.

The Fuse Powder Bed Fusion System

$100m. Tucked away in the press release Formlabs mentioned that its run rate was a $100 million a year, which by the by was 70% lower than my estimates. There are dozens of successful desktop startups that have a few million in revenues. Only a few have 30 million or more. To as an organization make it through several transitions, lose people, find people, find structures and replace them successfully is a challenge. It is a great achievement that a 7-year-old startup in hardware is doing at least sixth of 3D Systems’ revenue. Having the escape velocity to do that makes them well poised for further growth. Also, a billion dollar valuation with over 100m in revenue is less of a stretch of some more fanciful startups recently.

Scale and scope. Additionally, the company has expanded globally with multiple offices and now will extend its technologies to powder bed fusion as well. This will be an additional hurdle to follow. What will be the model of the successful 3D printing OEMs of the future? Service businesses that sell machines and have several technologies as Stratasys is; a jack of all trades as 3D Systems is; highly specialized but complete offering firms such as Ultimaker; a command and control company like EOS; or will it be a scrappy Prusa i3 clone maker that will only do that? We still can not know, but I think that Formlabs unique path has given us many implications for our industry. How exactly did they get this far?

Why was Formlabs able to out-execute and get this far? 

Closed works too. The riotous open FDM ecosystem is making leaps, bounds, sidesteps, tumbles generally forward. They are open, mostly pretend open source companies that through scrappy competition have made an open landscape that is increasingly being used for manufacturing. Recently I said that Stratasys should go open as well to become more competitive against this ecosystem. But, here is Formlabs and they’re closed. Their software, their printer, their materials. They decide, Apple-like, what is right for you.

Ease of Use. The closed Formlabs approach actually as a user gives you the best UX in 3D printing. The Formlabs printers are still the easiest to use from buttons to software in the industry. UX is not only for conferences and press releases, it matters. I’m not a fan of SLA but damn the thing just works.

Outexecute. Formlabs took what looked to be a rather simple challenge and outexecuted in all regards. Obsessive about quality and experience they went it alone in popularizing SLA and Pro. By holistically looking at the entire experience they performed better for one particular group of people: designers and engineers that needed smooth, highly detailed parts in semi-office settings. Too often companies want to be all things to all men and end up being nothing to no one.

Timing. That Formlabs was the first to tout Pro is largely understood and their focus on not the shop floor and not the desktop but the in-between was in retrospect brilliant. They anticipated what everyone else found out later, that the majority of desktop 3D printer buyers were companies. Also, they waited to bring out the Form Cell to do manufacturing, they didn’t try to sell manufacturing solutions off the bat. Being too early can suck too. The company had the only completely finished the prettiest product when it mattered, not to everyone but to enough.

Contrarian. Being contrarian is good on paper, rarely fun in real life. In 2009 I was at a meeting with around 10 or so industry experts discussing the challenges in 3D printing and every single one of us concluded that stereolithography was dead. We were unanimous in declaring that in the coming revolution of real-world end-use parts, SLA was toast. Ooops.

Lucky. At a time when there were dozens of FDM startups pouring into 3D printing most didn’t even give SLA a second glance. Exotic expensive photopolymers, lasers, it seemed so finicky. To the open source rough and tumble grease and solder folks the whole SLA thing just seemed a tad effete compared to what they were doing. And its not open source? Lets completely ignore them. This ended up being a godsend to the company and to this day they’ve had spectacularly little competition in desktop SLA.

Right place. Being close to MIT matters, its easier for some of the best people to join you and for you to get advice from some amazing people as well. Location still matters a lot in today’s world.

Max is very smart. 3D Printing has a lot of bright people in it, among those bright people Max is an exceptionally bright one. He’s also relentless in pursuing a vision. For most people and most firms such an approach leads to failure but if someone like Max surrounds himself with the brightest of people then sometimes, just sometimes the future happens.

Essentially there was a firm that sought out excellence at the right time in a contrarian way. By developing a system with good usability they, VC fueled were able to find and keep customers while being left to their own devices. Can’t wait to see what they’ll do next.

 

 

 

Dremel 90 degree drill press adapter #3DThursday #3DPrinting

endel99 shares:

This adapter is used for mounting a Dremel mini-grinder horizontally into a vertical drill press that uses 43mm collar. When used with a cutoff wheel, it allows precise movement in the plane of the disk, effectively turning the drill press into a cutoff saw.

download the fils on: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2990118


649-1
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!

Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!

The Adafruit Learning System has dozens of great tools to get you well on your way to creating incredible works of engineering, interactive art, and design with your 3D printer! If you’ve made a cool project that combines 3D printing and electronics, be sure to let us know, and we’ll feature it here!

Exporting from Fusion 360 Tips by Chris Young

Chris Young has a tip on saving projects out of Autodesk Fusion 360. Although that sounds like an obvious thing to do, it’s actually a bit of workaround when projects don’t quite export easily.

when it comes time to share my open source designs with the world, it’s very difficult to save these Fusion 360 designs to my hard drive to later be uploaded to GitHub or Thingiverse. Fusion 360 stores its files in the cloud under your account most of the time. It does have the ability to save a design to your hard drive but not if that design contains linked components. If you try breaking the links it can create reference errors especially if the linked components themselves contain linked subcomponents.

I’ve myself have ran into issues when trying to save out my projects locally for sharing on github, learn, thingiverse, etc. I thought it was easy enough share public links via the project window but seeing the process of downloading broken out in Chris’ blog made me realize how it is a bit of a process.

Common Autodesk, ya’ll can do better ?

Read full post on Chris Young’s Blog

Kupol 3D Printed Cycling Helmets Ready for Prime Time

Years ago a colleague of mine made a presentation discussing 3D Printed helmets. His point was that a helmet was an example of something that would be difficult to commercialize as a 3D printed product because of regulatory issues. You could get a better fit or even a safer helmet with 3D printing, but how would you be able to crash test all of the helmets? If each helmet has to be crushed 180 times for regulatory approval, then how would you test an individual helmet? Today a Canadian firm think that they’ve found an answer to this problem by designing and making a 3D printed helmet. This project was started back in 2017 and the team has been refining it ever since. We’ve seen a number of 3D printed bike helmet designs on our site, some are whimsical others very serious, will Kupol be the one that we wear? Designed to take advantage of 3D printing the Kupol bicycle helmets can be customized and make use of novel 3D printed structures to absorb impacts and engender comfort. We interviewed Gabriel Boutin, the CEO of Kupol to find out more.

The Kupol 3D Printed Bike Helmet

What material is the helmet made of?

Our helmets are currently made of PA12, which is the most common material in terms of plastic powder. It’s a great choice for its mechanical properties. We plan to test using polypropylene as soon as it is available on the market for MFJ, and are committed to making sure we use the safest and most efficient technology available.

Why did you pick this material?

Density and thickness are the main factors we test to reach a specific energy-absorption score. Our test results show that there are no real limitations in terms of materials. In fact, our 3D printed structures can be adapted to use with a wide range of plastic powders.

The Kinetic Bumpers inside the Kupol helmet.

The Kinetic Bumpers inside the Kupol helmet.

Why a 3D printed helmet?

As a consultant in the field of helmet design for over a decade, I’ve come to the conclusion that the main road block in the evolution of helmets is the manufacturing process.

The cycling helmet was always meant to evolve into a sophisticated 3D printed object. The foam helmet as we know it has not significantly advanced in more than twenty years. It’s high time for a revolution.

Molding the insulating material—called expanded polystyrene—was a major obstacle to fulfilling our promise of comfort. That’s why we came up with our patent-pending KOLLIDE safety system, composed of three parts. The 3D KORE is a matrix that collapses on impact to take the brunt of the force while acting as a foundation for our two additional layers of technology. The outer KINETIC BUMPERS cushion your head and act as a density absorption layer to slow the speed of impact before it reaches you. Finally, the inner helmet is lined with OKTOPUS technology, made from over 100 flexible, independent sucker-like pods that offer an adjusted, aerated fit as well as allow the helmet to move in rotation to absorb any kind of impact.

Is it customized? How?

Thanks to 3D printing, we can offer a product that’s available in twice the number sizes of traditional helmets. A better fit means better protection. Also, the 100+ OKTOPUS pods inside the 3D KORE enable us to provide a helmet with a semi-soft interior that adapts seamlessly to any head shape.In future, we plan to offer a wider range of colors and graphics to suit everyone’s tastes. Can customizable, full-color 3D printing be in the cards? I’m thinking that’s a yes.

How long does it take to make?

The printing time is actually quite fast. In about 12 hours, you can print 8 or so complete 3D KOREs. We print the main portion of the helmet in 4 sections to make the most of the space available in the build unit. Then we assemble the pieces, taking advantage of complete design freedom thanks to additive manufacturing. We work in collaboration with HP on their multi-jet fusion platform to achieve the best productivity and quality available on the market today.

What advantages does 3D printing bring to the user?

3D printing is the only manufacturing process that lets the designer focus solely on their goal: head safety. Other manufacturing techniques such as injection molding force the designer to compromise on so many aspects, from size to draft angles, fewer SKUs, and more. On the other hand, the user wants a helmet that’s as light as possible while offering superior protection as well as breathability. They want a perfect fit without uncomfortable pressure points, and expect the cutting edge of safety for the price they are willing to pay. The cyclist isn’t looking for compromise—they want it all. And that’s just what kupol gives them.

How do you ensure quality control?

Each print contains several test specimens that are controlled using precise engineering methods. We also perform impact tests to ensure the deceleration is constant. We are living in a time when 3D printing technology can deliver a constant and reliable output—which is key for what’s considered the 4th industrial revolution.

How can you ensure that all helmets are safe?

Our helmets will be put through the standard certification process—CPSC for North America, CE for Europe—as well as undergo any other qualifications required. Our mission at kupol is to contribute significantly to the advancement of head safety, and everything we do is a reflection of that commitment.

Who’s on your team?

Although our team is relatively small, we have adequate funding that allows us to work in collaboration with several renowned partners. My own unique experience in helmet design includes over a dozen helmet projects for other brands. Our 3D printing approach also allows for something I like to call asymmetric warfare—especially when it comes to current industry leaders. In the past, if someone like me wanted to develop their own helmet, there was only one possible path: fly to China, work with a major player, pay for expensive tooling, order minimum quantities, limit the number of SKUs, wait several months to receive your first helmet, find distributors, and hope for the best. Now? A small company can completely reinvent the industry thanks to additive manufacturing.

What are your future plans?

At kupol, we want to reinvent more than the cycling helmet. We believe we’ve found the right recipe to redesign other types of helmets, which is our goal for the long term. In the short term, we’re preparing to launch our first kupol cycling helmet—a versatile product for riders who commute, cycle for speed, or head off road.

Helmets have long been a target for people in 3D printing. Kupol seems to be bringing considerable industry experience to bear and combining this with 3D printing. Leveraging experience through new technology is always going to be a novel approach that leads to some results. How good are those results? We’ll have to see about that in the future. For now, the approach seems solid and kupol seems peppered by 3D printing wisdom such as optimizing parts for nesting, splitting up assemblies for different functions and increasing the number of variations. What I think is the smartest thing that they’ve done is to not be seduced by the dream of everyone’s unique head a unique helmet but rather to increase comfort through design and using 3D printing’s ability to create absorbing and flexible structures. They then did increase the number of sizes to aid in comfort but did not make an infinite number of helmets available. Infinite helmet variations is perhaps the dream but the team is sticking to an easier to produce but still advantageous design initially. This seems like a smart move.

These kinds of startups could represent a big win for HP as well. For many goods, it makes sense to stick to the tried and true and with those that have track records (eg EOS). With a new thing, however, why not learn on a new platform? Also, even though HP is a giant firm comparatively the company is the challenger in the market, the 800-pound startup if you will. A recipe for disaster perhaps or possibilities of le leveraging synergies and advantages that other manufacturers don’t have. If HP is hungry and flexible enough then they have the ability to nurture, incubate and grow startups in their ecosystem. HP can spend the time and candlepower to help startups get up to speed. If HP would fail at this for a decade and produce one Invisalign or similar it would be well worth it. Meanwhile, at EOS it is “bitte warten sie” (please hold) while the company scales to meet demand while hiring hundreds of people to serve customers. At this point, it may just be enough for two firms to be at very different growth phases to make a significant difference as to how this market plays out. The powder bed technologies have in my mind always been a perfect match with medical, safety and other personalized regulated gear and partners. Kupol is in and of itself a great opportunity but the bigger picture to see who commercializes anything from PPE to sports equipment and medical assistive devices is being played out as we speak through Kupol and the choices they and their competitors make.